Reply With Quote
We need Boomer concentration camps tbh
Absolutely. I never hide my , Effy. Ever. It's my religion.Meltdown after a woodshed tanning of a gimp's ass, priceless
We need Boomer concentration camps tbh
Pretty much. All they do is about the things they ruined. They want concentration camps, let's give them what they want.
Hows that pretty little wife of yours doin', fart-face.
Don't lose her, bene. I can't imagine you striking gold not once, but twice...
...as "John Coffey" administers in -The Green Mile-..."Careful."
Well, you broke that one guy for having a differing opinion on that school massacre back East. I can see ya's gettin' around to cc's with nary problem, Dumper. Nary.
not sure why you are still tolerated around here
Has me stumped no end as well, Bra.
That you'd prefer it be just 1 way around the same here has always been a puzzler to me, wherever I've lit. But at least "you're" consistent, batting like 1.000, well 9.999 thanks to (here).
Politicians paying newspapers to catch and kill unfavorable stories is nbd, right?
https://lawandcrime.com/opinion/opin...riminal-trial/First thing that caught my attention was something that had nothing to do with Trump. Rather it was Pecker’s discussion of Arnold Schwarzenegger. The prosecutor asked Pecker whether he had any qualms about getting involved in politics around the 2016 election and he said he did based on his experiences in 2003 around Schwarzenegger’s run to be California’s governor.
Pecker’s testimony described how when AMI was going to purchase some fitness magazines, Pecker was told by the owner of the magazines, Joe Weider, that Pecker had to talk to Schwarzenegger first. Schwarzenegger apparently asked Pecker to be an editor-at-large of the fitness magazines and for AMI to stop running negative stories about Schwarzenegger because he was about to run for governor. Pecker said he agreed to this arrangement so that AMI could ink the deal. Shortly afterward, Schwarzenegger announced that he was running for governor on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” and then AMI was inundated with calls from women with stories complaining about Schwarzenegger’s treatment. Pecker said he honored the agreement to not publish negative stories about Schwarzenegger and that he bought stories from women complaining about Schwarzenegger. Pecker had no plans to publish these women’s stories.
The prosecutor asked: “Did you come to appreciate the legalities surrounding such an arrangement with a political candidate?”
And then Pecker responded: “Yes. That was the first time I ever came across a political violation a political contribution, what a violation was.” At which point a lawyer for Trump objected to the use of the word “violation.”
What Pecker was describing with respect to AMI’s catch and kill efforts on behalf of candidate Schwarzenegger during the recall of Gov. Gray Davis was a likely a violation of California’s campaign finance laws at the time, which required transparency and compliance with contribution limits under Proposition 34 which set the max at $21,200 per donor per candidate.
Pecker wasn’t clear in his testimony how much he had spent on catching and killing negative stories about Schwarzenegger. But if it was more than $21,200, that’s one way California law could have been violated. And because it was secret, that’s another potential campaign finance violation under California law. The statute of limitations has long since run in California for those would-be crimes.
Then Pecker testified about his role in catch and kill for the Trump 2016 campaign. With respect to Karen McDougal, AMI paid her $150,000 and then never intended to run her story. Back in 2021, AMI settled a complaint at the FEC that this $150,000 payment was an illegal contribution to the Trump campaign in the 2016 election for a $187,500 fine. In the FEC settlement AMI acknowledged that it broke campaign finance laws in 2016. AMI also entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ in 2018, which is one reason Pecker can be so forthcoming.
The federal crimes Pecker appears to have acknowledged were more serious than the California ones. California law allows corporations to spend in elections. By contrast, there is still a federal law on the books known as the Tillman Act — now 52 U.S. Code § 30118 — which bars corporations from giving contributions directly to a candidate. Thus AMI would not have been able to lawfully give one red cent to the Trump campaign directly.
By giving $150,000 in value in secret to influence the 2016 election, AMI arguably violated the federal law in at least three ways: (1) it was an illegal corporate contribution that violated the Tillman Act; (2) it was an illegal contribution because it was bigger than what an individual person could lawfully give a federal candidate; and (3) it wasn’t properly disclosed as a campaign contribution by either AMI or the Trump campaign.
There’s even a fourth potential crime because the payment was done through s corporations including Michael Cohen’s Resolution Consultants LLC, such that the transaction violated the federal ban on giving contribution in the name of another (aka an illegal straw donor). Pecker admitted in his testimony that he knew it was unlawful for a corporation to coordinate with federal candidate.
Dems didn't to this to Donald Trump, Donald Trump and a jury of twelve people did
Dems didn't to this to Donald Trump, Donald Trump and a jury of twelve people did
And in the backwash he made President and if they don't shoot him again he'll get sworn come the 20th.
he made president, we're in the backwash
...the lawsuits and court actions will commence the 21st on the button. It will be a boundless tidal wave.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions